Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority & Anr vs R.K. Dawra

This first appeal has been filed by the appellants Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority & Anr., against the order dated 23.05.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission") passed in Complaint No.168 of 2016.

Brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties/appellants invited application in 2010 for allotment of 816 freehold residential plots. A plot was allotted to the respondent/complainant, who paid Rs.30,20,457/- to the opposite parties including the penal interest etc. The opposite parties did not deliver the possession to the complainant. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 23.05.2017 allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties/appellants to refund Rs.30,20,457/- along with simple interest of 10% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/-.

Hence the present appeal by the appellants/opposite parties

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that there is already a clause in the agreement that if the opposite parties are not ready to deliver the possession it can offer an alternate property to the consumer or will refund the amount paid along with 10% p.a. interest. He stated that the appellants are not aggrieved by the order of the State Commission for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.30,20,457/- along with 10% interest but the appellants are aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel further mentioned that a plot was allotted to the complainant, however the opposite parties were not able to give the possession of that plot and therefore, an alternate plot was given to the complainant. However, the complainant did not accept the same and asked for refund.

Learned counsel cited the conditions mentioned in the brochure, which reads as under:-

"i. Possession of plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site in a period of 1.5 years from the date of issuance of Letter of intent. In case for any reason, BDA is unable to deliver the possession of plots in stipulated period, allottee shall have a right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer, in that case, the authority shall refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with 10% simple interest. Apart from this, there shall be no other liability of the Authority.

ii. In case the Authority is unable to give the possession of plot due to any reason, the allocation of the plot shall be cancelled and the Authority shall refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with 10% simple interest. A part from this, there shall be no other liability of the Authority."

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the material on record. In the present case, there is no doubt if the possession is delayed or if the allotment is cancelled, the opposite parties are liable to refund deposited amount along with 10% p.a. interest. However, in the present case, it is seen that when the possession was not given inspite of depositing the total sale consideration, the complainant filed a consumer complaint for refund of the total amount along with 24% p.a. interest. The opposite parties/Authority could not furnish the reason for not been able to give the possession of the allotted plot to the complainant.

The District Forum, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is authorised to award compensation keeping in view the loss and injury suffered. As the complainant has deposited the total consideration of the plot, he was deprived of using this money in his own way. Moreover, he got a plot allotted. However, the possession was not given, therefore, he has definitely suffered mental agony and harassment by this act of the opposite parties/appellants. As no proper reasoning has been given for not giving possession of the said plot to the complainant, in my view, the State Commission was right in awarding a compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Otherwise also, in such refund cases, this Commission has been recently awarding interest of 11% p.a. or 12% p.a. or even more depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and in the present case only 10% p.a. interest has been awarded, therefore, the award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by the State Commission may not be seen as additional financial burden on the appellant Authority. From this point of view also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal no.2272 of 2017 is dismissed in limine.